Were the SS as bad as they've been made out to be?

[Gordon Bennett]

Not sure if this is the right forum to post this in, hopefully it's close enough.
Watching Hollywood movies about WWII I get the impression that the SS were a bunch of evil SOBs. I was just wondering if anyone had any info to challenge that reputation.

[Breker]

Not sure if this is the right forum to post this in, hopefully it's close enough.
Watching Hollywood movies about WWII I get the impression that the SS were a bunch of evil SOBs. I was just wondering if anyone had any info to challenge that reputation.

In a nut shell, no, not even close.
Initially the SS was meant to be an elite security force for Hitler and his immediate group, they were later expanded into fully armed combat divisions.
While they did have some different functions from the Wehrmacht (administering the labor sites, etc.), they certainly did not do what is claimed by Zionist propagandists.

The propaganda about the SS is simply no different than the now discredited claims about the "Holocaust" in general.
B.

It's certainly no secret as to who runs "Hollywood"?

[Gordon Bennett]

In a nut shell, no, not even close.
Initially the SS was meant to be an elite security force for Hitler and his immediate group, they were later expanded into fully armed combat divisions.
While they did have some different functions from the Wehrmacht, they certainly did not do what is claimed.

The propaganda about the SS are simply no different than the now discredited claims about the "Holocaust" in general.
B.

Thanks much appreciated. Do you know of any books that are worth reading on the subject?

[Breker]

asked:

Thanks much appreciated. Do you know of any books that are worth reading on the subject?

Mr. Bennett, briefly:

Epic: The Story of the Waffen SS
Paper presented at the IHR's 1982 Revisionist Conference
By Léon Degrelle
https://codoh.com/library/document/epic ... fen-ss/en/
and:
https://www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p441_Degrelle.html


Bill O'Reilly's Terrible Book about the SS – Part One
Base Motives and a Defective Perspective
By Hadding Scott
https://codoh.com/library/document/bill ... rt-one/en/

also:
https://codoh.com/search/?sorting=relevance&q=SS
plus:
https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=013772451 ... ric..0.0.0.

[Gordon Bennett]

That'll keep me busy for a while! Cheers.

[Archie]

Check out Konrad Morgen. He was an SS lawyer who Himmler assigned to do internal investigations at the camps. Morgen had the Commandant of Buchenwald, Karl-Otto Koch, executed for the unjustifiable killings of two hospital orderlies at the camp. This is not consistent with the Hollywood image of the SS where the entire purpose of the camps was gratuitous cruelty.

In late 1942 when there were human soap rumors whirling about, Himmler’s reaction was to dismiss it as obvious propaganda, but he also had someone look into it just to make sure nobody was doing actually anything like that.

[Gordon Bennett]

Konrad Morgen, gotcha thanks. Sounds really interesting. Going off topic a bit I was just wondering if my experience is typical when it comes to speaking with young Germans. To me they all seem completely brainwashed, not even willing to question their beliefs. Have you had that experience I wonder?

[Hannover]

... was just wondering if my experience is typical when it comes to speaking with young Germans. To me they all seem completely brainwashed, not even willing to question their beliefs. Have you had that experience I wonder?

The fact is that Germans, young & old, and those of many European countries will be arrested if they dare to speak freely about the SS and any facts regarding the fake & impossible 'holocaust' narrative.

That suppression of free speech & inquiry proves that it's a fraud. Simple as that.

Only lies require censorship.

- Hannover

Below is where free speech on the "holocaust" story line is illegal, violators go to prison for Thought Crimes. In all western countries, persecution, harassment, violent attacks & threats are the order of the day against those who engage in free speech about the impossible claims within it. Those are obvious admissions that the storyline doesn't stand up to scientific, logical, & rational scrutiny.

[Gordon Bennett]

I get the distinct feeling that they actually believe all the BS. They watch movies like Schindler's list and take them to be real.

[Lamprecht]

Atrocities are committed in wars, yes, especially very prolonged ones like this. It happened on both sides. I am sure some of the horror stories are real, just as I am sure some of them are either greatly exaggerated or totally invented. The SS wasn't going around to jewsh ghettos and ripping babies in half. I am sure there were individual and unnecessarily bloodthirsty acts of indiscipline. But the idea that Germany was a hellish place with barbed-wire and starvation camps everywhere or jackbooted thugs marching in the streets 24/7 is just a Hollywood invention. Your OP is extremely vague so there isn't much to say about it, but the thing about accusations against the SS is that you can't just go around questioning it without being labelled a "nazi" or whatever.

I get the distinct feeling that they actually believe all the BS. They watch movies like Schindler's list and take them to be real.

As posted by Hannover a long time ago:

Primitivism is back: taboos used to secure power
viewtopic.php?t=1580

Think on these things - The Auschwitz Taboo

Compiled from Dr. Toben Dec. 2004

Prof Dr Robert Hepp[1]

"Occasional experiments that I have conducted in my seminars convince me that 'Auschwitz' [the most well known site of the Holocaust] is ethnologically speaking one of the few taboo topics that our 'taboo free society' still preserves.[2] While they did not react at all to other stimulants, 'enlightened' central European students who refused to accept any taboos at all, would react to a confrontation with 'revisionist' [denial] texts' about the gas chambers at Auschwitz in just an 'elementary' way (including the comparable physiological symptoms) as members of primitive Polynesian tribes would react to an infringement of one of their taboos. The students were literally besides themselves and were neither prepared nor capable of soberly discussing the presented theses. For the sociologist this is a very important point because a society's taboos reveal what it holds sacred.

Taboos also reveal what the community fears.[3] Currently fear of perceived danger takes on the form of ticks and phobias that remind us of obsessive neurotics. However, it cannot be denied that numerous taboos have a function that preserves individuals from danger, and even if taboos are a part of an individual's make-up, it is difficult to ascertain if the fear of the one rests on the power of the other, or vice versa.

It is thus understandable that priests and rulers have never hesitated to use taboos to secure their power; to date there has been no society which has relinquished the use of taboos to secure its own power base. In a 'modern society', such as the Federal Republic [of Germany], the formal rules of behaviour and sanctions play a larger role than it does within the Polynesian tribes to which European explorers first drew our attention.

In our society, besides the usual 'legal' commands and prohibitions that control behaviour, there are also commands and prohibitions that are self-regulating. If such expectations are frustrated then, as in the Polynesian society, an automatic sanctions process is activated that does not need to be justified.

A 'modern' society does not in any way react differently to breeches of taboos than does a 'primitive' society. Taboos are generally perceived as 'outrageous' and 'abominations' and produce spontaneous 'revulsion'.

In the end the perpetrator is isolated, excluded from society and himself 'tabooed'."

[1] Robert Hepp: "Die Kampagne gegen Hellmut Diwald von 1978/79 - Zweiter Teil: "Richtigstellungen", in: Rolf-Josepf Eibicht (Hg.), Hellmut Diwald. Sein Vermächtnis für Deutschland. Sein Mut zur Geschichte, Hohenrain-Verlag, Tübingen 1994, p.140 (http://www.vho.org/D/diwald/hepp.html.)

[2] Cf. Franz Steiner, Taboo, Cohen & West, London 1956, p.20ff.

[3] Hutton-Webster, Taboo. A Sociological Study, Stanford University Press, Stanford 1942. Reprinted London 1973, p.14: "Fear is systematized in taboo."

And also, from: [Video] The Authoritarian View of Knowledge: Peer Review

Hannover:

That reminds me of this quote from: 'Propaganda', by French social philosopher Jacques Ellul:

"Action makes propaganda's effect irreversible. He who acts in obedience to propaganda can never go back. He is now obliged to believe in that propaganda because of his past action. He is obliged to receive from it his justification and authority, without which his action will seem to him absurd or unjust, which would be intolerable. He is obliged to continue to advance in the direction indicated by propaganda, for action demands more action."

Interesting stuff.

American-Jew Edward Bernays wrote a whole book about this in 1928, also titled "Propaganda" - from his book:

‘The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

‘We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, our ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society....

‘Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world....

‘Sometimes the effect on the public is created by a professional propagandist, sometimes by an amateur deputed for the job. The important thing is that it is universal and continuous; and in its sum total is regimenting the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers....

‘The systematic study of mass psychology revealed to students the potentialities of invisible government of society by manipulation of the motives which actuate man in the group.... So the question naturally arose: If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?

‘The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits....

‘No serious sociologist believes any longer that the voice of the people expresses any divine or especially wise and lofty idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion....

‘Whether in the problem of getting elected to office or in the problem of interpreting and popularizing new issues, or in the problem of making the day-to-day administration of public affairs a vital part of the community life, the use of propaganda, carefully adjusted to the mentality of the masses, is an essential adjunct of political life.’

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.275553 or http://archive.is/taLV2

[Breker]

Come to think of it, we don't seem to recall the SS dropping not one, but two atomic bombs on population centers like the US Army Air Force did.
Or how about the Allied initiation of civilian bombings where Germany pleaded with them to stop long before Germany was forced into limited retaliations.
But then we have not seen Mr. Bennett present any confirmed instances of massive SS atrocities.
B.

[Hektor]

Konrad Morgen, gotcha thanks. Sounds really interesting. Going off topic a bit I was just wondering if my experience is typical when it comes to speaking with young Germans. To me they all seem completely brainwashed, not even willing to question their beliefs. Have you had that experience I wonder?

While I consider ALL to be an overstatement, I got a good idea, why that impression would arise.

The issue is pushed hook, line and sinker into people's throats in Germany. And the generation that could have given them a different POV is mostly no longer with us. The majority of parents, teachers or any contact person has been indoctrinated the same way. It's part of the pop-Culture, if you want. And that myth got power, if one looks at the voting behaviour one can clearly see that. The Merkel-CDU in cahoots with other parties did mess up on most important issues, still they keep on voting for them.


As for the issue, bear in mind that probably less than 95% of people have more knowledge on NS-history than what comes through the officious channels. Doesn't mean that there is some doubt about the narratives, but literature presenting alternative views is hard to come by. Most people also lack the intellectual capacity to understand what's wrong with the story. The Holocaust narrative is designed to appeal and dupe a mass audience. Despite being shaky to those that have dealt with the issue (which would be a small minority) widespread Holocaust belief will persist until a new generation of historians finds the courage, honesty and resources to deconstruct it piece by piece. As long as the academic activists get funding, appreciation and don't meet resistance I'd expect that the Shoah will go on.

[Gordon Bennett]

Come to think of it, we don't seem to recall the SS dropping not one, but two atomic bombs on population centers like the US Army Air Force did.
Or how about the Allied initiation of civilian bombings where Germany pleaded with them to stop long before Germany was forced into limited retaliations.
But then we have not seen Mr. Bennett present any confirmed instances of massive SS atrocities.
B.

My question was very general, why should I be expected to present confirmed instances of SS atrocities? People are allowed to have general questions you know. Anyway, with every question I have it seems, they'll be at least one person here who makes me feel like I have to defend some position or other. It's tiresome! But here I am again having to explain my motives for making what I thought was a fairly innocuous enquiry. Like many people my knowledge regarding WWII comes from films I've seen and I've been noticing that Hollywood likes to portray the SS as intrinsically evil and worthy of the worst treatment, especially films made in the last couple of decades. I sort of took it as a given that people were aware of this and just wanted to know how true it was. The distrust of some here can only put off people from asking questions I reckon. As soon as you become suspicious of the person asking the question and start putting them in a position where they feel like they have to explain themselves, well it's only going to discourage them from returning to the site which surely would be detrimental to the purpose of the forum, that is if the purpose of the forum is to provide revisionist information. With respect, in short you should act less like policemen and more like people who want to encourage questions from newbies such as myself. You've been very helpful and I am very grateful for the info you've provided but this comment of yours is frankly like a turd in the punch bowl!

[Breker]

Mr. Bennett said to me:

My question was very general, why should I be expected to present confirmed instances of SS atrocities? People are allowed to have general questions you know. Anyway, with every question I have it seems, they'll be at least one person here who makes me feel like I have to defend some position or other. It's tiresome! But here I am again having to explain my motives for making what I thought was a fairly innocuous enquiry. Like many people my knowledge regarding WWII comes from films I've seen and I've been noticing that Hollywood likes to portray the SS as intrinsically evil and worthy of the worst treatment, especially films made in the last couple of decades. I sort of took it as a given that people were aware of this and just wanted to know how true it was. The distrust of some here can only put off people from asking questions I reckon. As soon as you become suspicious of the person asking the question and start putting them in a position where they feel like they have to explain themselves, well it's only going to discourage them from returning to the site which surely would be detrimental to the purpose of the forum, that is if the purpose of the forum is to provide revisionist information. With respect, in short you should act less like policemen and more like people who want to encourage questions from newbies such as myself. You've been very helpful and I am very grateful for the info you've provided but this comment of yours is frankly like a turd in the punch bowl!

Perhaps you could calm down just a bit and cease over reacting. This is, after all, a discussion - debate forum. Of course you can ask general questions, and they are being answered. You can also be asked related questions, that's how it works. I was curious if you believed in any of the alleged massive SS atrocities. One doesn't know until they ask.
Indeed sir, we discuss a curiously touchy subject; but querying you in a thread which you initiated is hardly "a turd in the punch bowl". Good heavens man.
B.

[Lamprecht]

There is a rather long thread here regarding legitimate atrocities, for the record:

Legitimate Nazi Atrocities
viewtopic.php?t=8170